Nvidia 320M GPU made especially for Apple's new 13-inch MacBook Pro

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
While the GeForce GT 330M featured in the new 15- and 17-inch MacBook Pros has already been found in competing notebook PCs, the new 13-inch MacBook Pro sports the Nvidia 320M, a graphics processor created just for Apple.



An Nvidia spokesperson told AppleInsider Tuesday that the new 320M was made especially for Apple, and is the successor to the GeForce 9400M, introduced in 2008. The 320M is an integrated graphics chipset for notebooks based on Intel's Core 2 Duo line of processors.



According to Notebookcheck.net, the 320M does not have dedicated graphics memory, but uses shared memory for the system for its graphics processing, giving it poorer performance than a GPU with dedicated memory. The 320M (not to be confused with the GeForce GT 320M) is based on the GT216 core, and offers 48 shader cores.



The report said the gaming performance of the 320M should be comparable to, but slightly better than, a 310M. The 320M also supports PureVideo HD for high definition decoding within the GPU. The processor can also be used to encode videos.



In announcing its new line of MacBook Pros on Tuesday, Apple revealed that the GeForce 320M GPU offers up to 80 percent faster graphics processing. It also helps the 13-inch MacBook Pro achieve 10 hours of battery life. Apple called the 320M the "fastest integrated graphics processor on the market."







The 13-inch model also includes faster Core 2 Duo processors, reaching speeds up to 2.66GHz and featuring a 1066MHz frontside bus with 3MB of shared L2 cache.



Featured on the 15- and 17-inch models is the 330M, which Apple said is more than twice as fast as the low-end 320M. Apple said the GT 330M "provides smooth, crisp on-screen graphics for the most demanding 3D games, creative software and technical applications."



The 15- and 17-inch MacBook Pros also include automatic graphics switching, which Apple has dubbed a "breakthrough" technology. It allows the system to switch graphics processors on the fly, giving users performance when they need it and better battery efficiency when they don't. AppleInsider first revealed Apple was planning dual graphics technology in its future MacBook Pros in February.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 71
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    I'd wager that for the average 13" MBP buyer the C2D w/ Nvidia 320M is better option than Core-i3 w/ Intel HD.
  • Reply 2 of 71
    I'd buy that for a dollar!
  • Reply 3 of 71
    donlphidonlphi Posts: 214member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post


    I'd buy that for a dollar!



    Nothing wakes me up like a Robocop reference in the morning. Thanks.
  • Reply 4 of 71
    nomadnomad Posts: 11member
    The reason for the Core2Duo Chips is soley the option for the "cheap" Nvidia GFX chip solution. If they used the Intel HD Chips, they would lose a lot of performance compared to the 9400 Chips in previous models. Damn you Intel Let's see how the lawsuit works out betrween NVidia an Intel about teh Chipset Market.
  • Reply 5 of 71
    hattighattig Posts: 860member
    It is indeed an interesting product.



    Three times the shaders, yet only up to 1.8 times the performance.



    This is probably down to using shared memory and running the chipset at a lower speed to reduce power consumption.



    However the new low-end MacBook Pro 13" is distinctly better than yesterday's. Shame it doesn't have a low-end Core i5 or high-end Core i3 inside, but you can't have everything.
  • Reply 6 of 71
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    Anyone know why there's such a massive price difference between the two 13" models (£250 in the UK)? It certainly can't be down the HDD!
  • Reply 7 of 71
    aiolosaiolos Posts: 228member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nomad View Post


    The reason for the Core2Duo Chips is soley the option for the "cheap" Nvidia GFX chip solution. If they used the Intel HD Chips, they would lose a lot of performance compared to the 9400 Chips in previous models. Damn you Intel Let's see how the lawsuit works out betrween NVidia an Intel about teh Chipset Market.



    Definitely. I'm really pleasantly surprise Nvidia helped Apple by creating a new graphics card specifically for them that still runs on the older chipsets.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post


    \\However the new low-end MacBook Pro 13" is distinctly better than yesterday's. Shame it doesn't have a low-end Core i5 or high-end Core i3 inside, but you can't have everything.



    Well, if they wanted i3's or i5's, they would need the new chipsets from intel, which don't work with Nvidia's 9400M type system. So the new 13" would be stuck with Intel HD from the intel chipsets, which is worse than the 9400M. Thus this is a temporary solution while Nvidia can hopefully get Intel to stop preventing their processors from being used in Intel chipsets.
  • Reply 8 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post


    This is probably down to using shared memory and running the chipset at a lower speed to reduce power consumption.



    Almost certainly the lack of onboard memory - it takes a huge hit having to deal with the shared RAM (the main bus, distance, extra glue hardware/code , etc?).
  • Reply 9 of 71
    Hi there, I am a college student and I would like to buy a new MacBook pro. I have my budget, so is the 13-inch: 2.4GHz good enough? What is the difference between dual core and core i7 or ..... I don't understand those terms at all. Can you please explain it to me in simple words? Thanks
  • Reply 10 of 71
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,757member
    Custom for the MBP?



    Nice.
  • Reply 11 of 71
    hattighattig Posts: 860member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RichL View Post


    Anyone know why there's such a massive price difference between the two 13" models (£250 in the UK)? It certainly can't be down the HDD!



    Ridiculous Apple price point setting. A faster CPU and some hard drive space certainly shouldn't add up to £250 extra.



    13": £999

    13": £1250

    15": £1500 (c.f. $1799 which translates to £1170, +VAT = £1375, a £125 price premium)
  • Reply 12 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aiolos View Post


    Well, if they wanted i3's or i5's, they would need the new chipsets from intel, which don't work with Nvidia's 9400M type system. So the new 13" would be stuck with Intel HD from the intel chipsets, which is worse than the 9400M. Thus this is a temporary solution while Nvidia can hopefully get Intel to stop preventing their processors from being used in Intel chipsets.



    The low-end 13" is now "one-heck-of-a-deal." Why spend $300 more for the high-end 13", which essentially just gives you a slightly faster processor? (Getting the 320GB instead of the 250GB hard drive doesn't give you much; if the 250GB is not big enough, then better to spend about a $100 more and upgrade to a 500GB 7200rpm).



    I wish they had kept the low-end 15" with Core2Duo and Nvidia integrated chip. Although I want to get a 15", I am hesitating because of the Intel HD graphics. If this is a temporary solution, I wonder how temporary. I also hope that Apple is putting pressure on Intel to straighten out this issue with Nvidia.
  • Reply 13 of 71
    duskdusk Posts: 36member
    I think the difference between 2,4Ghz and 2,66 is definitely not worth it.

    Core i7 or i5 are a new Nehalem based Architecture from Intel. The C2D in the 13" are still the old architecture that has been here for about 2 years now.

    Corei iX are significantly faster in situations that benefit from a lot of cores since they have 4 logical cores. This gives you around 20% faster encoding speed. If you do a lot of video work or render stuff the new CPUs might be better for you if you're more the usual web surfer, gamer, office word user the upgrade to 15" is not worth it.

    You can get significantly better performance Corei5 from much cheaper windows notebooks though.

    Bigger diff. betweend 13" and 15" is the GPU which is supposedly twice as fast in 15". Compared to quite a few windows notebooks it still ain't that good and 256mb is just a little too less for many modern games at these resolutions and if you want AA.
  • Reply 14 of 71
    rufworkrufwork Posts: 130member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tech specs


    Intel HD Graphics with 256MB of DDR3 SDRAM shared with main memory



    So if 320M and 330M are integrated graphics, how does the Intel chip fit in? That is, if you're integrated, you're usually, what, integrated with the memory controller or some such? Do the MacBook Pros dodge the Intel vs. NVIDIA lawsuit by having two of essentially the same thing in the box?
  • Reply 15 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by steven ong View Post


    Hi there, I am a college student and I would like to buy a new MacBook pro. I have my budget, so is the 13-inch: 2.4GHz good enough? What is the difference between dual core and core i7 or ..... I don't understand those terms at all. Can you please explain it to me in simple words? Thanks



    Depends on what your needs are. But, if you don't know the difference between Core2Duo and Core i7 (the latter is much faster), then my guess is that the 13" 2.4Ghz should be good enough for you.
  • Reply 16 of 71
    ctwisectwise Posts: 48member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RichL View Post


    Anyone know why there's such a massive price difference between the two 13" models (£250 in the UK)? It certainly can't be down the HDD!



    The more expensive model also has a CPU bump from 2.4 to 2.6.
  • Reply 17 of 71
    rufworkrufwork Posts: 130member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aiolos View Post


    Definitely. I'm really pleasantly surprise Nvidia helped Apple by creating a new graphics card specifically for them that still runs on the older chipsets.



    What, as opposed to Intel pulling a tiny processor out of mothballs for the even more niche Air? I think Apple has some clout now. ;^)
  • Reply 18 of 71
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ctwise View Post


    The more expensive model also has a CPU bump from 2.4 to 2.6.



    While I don't agree with the complaining, according to Intel's price list, in sales of 1000 units the 2.4GHz chip is $209 while the 2.66GHz chip is $241.
  • Reply 19 of 71
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post


    Ridiculous Apple price point setting. A faster CPU and some hard drive space certainly shouldn't add up to £250 extra.



    Sure it does.. you just gotta be using Steve's calculator.. then it adds up perfectly!
  • Reply 20 of 71
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post


    Depends on what your needs are. But, if you don't know the difference between Core2Duo and Core i7 (the latter is much faster), then my guess is that the 13" 2.4Ghz should be good enough for you.



    Hmm. Thank you AppleGreen!



    I am very confused with all the terms, but now that you have already enlighten me, I got a clearer picture.



    I am just using it for the basic, like typing, online, and watching movies. So, you would suggest I get the 13 inch? I am tempted because I really like the fact that the battery could last until 10 hours. That would be useful if I am traveling.



    Thanks again AppleGreen.
Sign In or Register to comment.